Financialization of Commodity Markets: Did Wall Street Break Commodities?

Book: Commodities: Markets, Performance, and Strategies
Editors: H. Kent Baker, Greg Filbeck, Jeffrey H. Harris
ISBN: 9780190656010
Chapter 25: Financialization of Commodity Markets (Kyle J. Putnam & Ramesh Adhikari)

After 2001, a new crowd showed up in commodity futures. Pension funds, endowments, insurance companies. Commodity index traders (CITs). Hedge funds piling into energy and ag markets. Trading volume on U.S. commodity futures went from about 630 million contracts in 1998 to 3.8 billion by 2008. Index investment alone grew from roughly $50 billion to $300 billion between 2004 and 2010.

Putnam and Adhikari call this the financialization of commodity markets. The question that followed was fierce: did all that money distort prices, spike food and energy costs, and wreck the diversification benefits that drew investors there in the first place?

This chapter lays out both sides with data, not just opinions.

What changed in the markets

OTC derivatives exploded. Notional outstanding on commodity OTC forwards, swaps, and options grew 15x from 1998 to 2008, then contracted after the financial crisis. Exchange-traded volume kept climbing. Energy led the way. Weekly energy futures volume hit 45x its 1986 level by 2016.

Who trades changed. Noncommercial long positions rose from about 11% to 31% of open interest between 2001 and 2016. Commercial hedgers’ share of positions trended down while speculators’ share rose about 22 percentage points. CITs are few in number (18 in 2010 vs. 1,500 commercial hedgers) but hold massive notional positions. Index funds held up to 47% of live cattle open interest and nearly half of ag open interest in some markets.

How financial investors might affect prices

Three transmission channels matter:

Risk sharing. Keynes-Hicks hedging pressure theory says hedgers pay speculators to take the other side. Financialization can improve risk sharing when index money provides liquidity. But financial investors have time-varying risk appetite. When equities crash, CITs may dump commodity longs and transmit stress back to hedgers.

Information discovery. Speculation with informational frictions can push prices away from fundamentals. Producers cannot tell if price rises are real demand or financial flows. Inventory may not respond the way theory predicts during speculative booms.

Theoretical models from Basak and Pavlova, Baker, and Sockin and Xiong predict higher prices (especially for index members), higher volatility, and higher correlations with equities when institutions benchmark to commodity indexes.

What the data show

Table 25.1 compares pre-2001 vs. post-2001 returns by sector. Most sectors saw higher returns, higher volatility, and better risk-adjusted performance in the financialization era. Livestock was the exception.

Prices rose to about 4x pre-2000 averages by 2011 before pulling back. Equity-commodity correlations climbed toward 0.5 and stayed elevated through 2012. Commodity-to-oil correlations jumped after 2004, especially for index members. Tang and Xiong argue that pattern reflects index investment, not economic linkage.

Volatility spiked around 2007-2009. Silvennoinen and Thorp found noncommercial positions affect volatility. Adams and Gluck documented stock-to-commodity spillovers after 2008 that were one-directional.

Diversification still works, but differently. Adhikari, Putnam, and Maroney found adding commodities to a U.S. stock-bond portfolio still helps, especially vs. a global portfolio. Benefits vary by investor type (min-variance vs. Sharpe maximizer).

The skeptical camp

Irwin, Sanders, and others push back hard. They say:

• Little systematic evidence links index positions to price changes
• Price changes often cause position changes, not the reverse
• Bubbles are unlikely in futures with limited horizons and easy shorting
• Cross-sectional tests find weak support for index positions predicting returns
• Data methods used by Masters and Singleton overstate index investment

Bhardwaj, Gorton, and Rouwenhorst benchmark the 2000s against 45 prior years and argue business cycle conditions explain most changes. The commercial vs. noncommercial ratio stayed relatively stable. Risk premiums stayed near historical averages.

Haase, Zimmermann, and Zimmermann reviewed 100 empirical studies. Results depend heavily on how you measure “speculation.” Proxy measures tend to find positive price effects. Direct position measures often find weakening effects on returns and risk premiums.

My read

Financialization clearly changed who trades commodities and how markets connect to stocks and macro stress. Prices, correlations, and volatility all shifted in the 2000s. Whether index money caused the 2008 food and oil spike is still debated. The evidence is mixed and method-dependent.

What seems solid: commodity futures still offer diversification for many portfolios, but the low-correlation story is weaker than it was in the 1990s. Regulators responded with Dodd-Frank and more CFTC transparency. Markets partially normalized after 2012 even with index traders still present.

If you invest in commodities or argue about speculation in wheat and oil, this chapter gives you the full map of the fight. Neither side has a clean knockout.

Previous: Energy Risk Management
Next: Virtual Currencies as Commodities